| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question please.
Does all the PrC haters really think that the Shadowdancer or Mystic Theurge could have been done with feats?
Mystic theurge and similar PrCs are IMHO needed for multiclassing, expecially if involved spellcasting.
What irks me of shadowdancer is not the esistence of the PrC per se, but the fact that a lot of awesome stuff SD, Assassin and Master spy have should have been of the Rogue.
Now, let the PrC exist because is fun being Paladin12/SD 1 and RP the Goshdarn Batman, but Base Classes should come first.
EDIT: and please, I'm not an hater. I always allowed PrCs to my players.
I just found silly they had to look into a PrC to get an ability in my opinion a class should have as an option. As explained above, i just don't think are the way to go.
Archetypes neither, but are far better IMHO.
@Aevux
1) sorry, not applicable for archetypes. Archetypes are for THAT specific class. There is no relation with geisha.
2) as an example? Moreover, Is not a matter of bloat. If i design something for a class, cannot come up a thing like "whoops, even a wizard can take that for thi combo".
3) again, as an example? 3.5 had the caster PrCs. PF for archetypes has....? Maybe the Qinjong fix? For archery is anyway better Zen Archer.
I don't deny there is no bloat, and not because all corners are already covered, but because of lazy design (Dragon Shaman, Geisha).
Nevertheless, I restate, you ignore my main point above: PrC put you more in the corner of anti-customization. To change it, you have to go one step FURTHER archetypes (interchangeable class features) not a step BACK.
Maybe i don't understand your 1) then.
I thought was that useless bloaty ones would be made, hence why the geshia is brought up.
for number 2, There is always a chance they might make something overpowered if you do this that and this. Its true that it is far harder though because of the heavy amount of lockdown they have right now. Right now they seem to have done a good job of preventing it..
for three.. If you were playing any class that has archtypes (especially the ones in the first book) do you not feel a little pressure to play an archtype? That's what I thought you meant, like how in 3.5 you would get to level five and feel you really should take an archtype.
In Pathfinder, its kinda the same way like that.. there is a bit of pressure to play an archtype of a class.
And no, I'm not saying to take a step back, as you say. I'm saying to take 2 steps forward and possibly even a leap,hop, skip and jump, with the inclusion of Archtypes, sub-archtypes, prestige archtypes and finally prestige classes and their archtypes.
A sub-archtype is an archtype that requires another archtype to be in place and slightly mods out some of the other archtypes abilities. Kinda like Domains and sub domains.
Prestige Archtypes are ones that you can have after you fulfill a certain requirement, often require a specific archtype as well but are selected later in the game at a particular level.
For example Surgeon+Vivisectionist may have the Fleshwarper Prestige archtype that replaces some of the combined abilities with some newish abilities. In the end you are still a 20th level alchemist.
But still, My personally fav right now is the way the free-formed games take it. I've got a character right now slowly developing into some mad doctor and have been aquiring various skills in gurps to allow for that.
While the others who disagree with the people who would actually like a few PrCs every now and then find it easier to assume that the PrC wanters who disagree with them want all the PrCs to be exactly like 3.X prcs.
Mods, if you're going to delete my post, please delete my dot, too. Not interested.
No one in this discussion hates PrCs. Some people in this discussion who want Pathfinder to look more like 3X just find it easier to assume that other people who disagree with them disagree for purely emotional reasons.Question please.
Does all the PrC haters really think that the Shadowdancer or Mystic Theurge could have been done with feats?
Mystic theurge and similar PrCs are IMHO needed for multiclassing, expecially if involved spellcasting.
What irks me of shadowdancer is not the esistence of the PrC per se, but the fact that a lot of awesome stuff SD, Assassin and Master spy have should have been of the Rogue.
Now, let the PrC exist because is fun being Paladin12/SD 1 and RP the Goshdarn Batman, but Base Classes should come first.
EDIT: and please, I'm not an hater. I always allowed PrCs to my players.
I just found silly they had to look into a PrC to get an ability in my opinion a class should have as an option. As explained above, i just don't think are the way to go.
Archetypes neither, but are far better IMHO.
Well, I like what pathfinder has done mostly with PrCs. It is a tad different from what 3.X did, and much better, so I do think any PrCs done from now on will be better done. So I have been hoping. However I am happy with the Archetypes.
No one in this discussion hates PrCs. Some people in this discussion who want Pathfinder to look more like 3X just find it easier to assume that other people who disagree with them disagree for purely emotional reasons.
Um...hold the phone here...you said if you started to see PrCs in Pathfinder Core rule books you would quit playing PF(or atleast stop playing) Sorry but that seems like a alot of hate towards something.
I really dislike the Words of power part(which took alot more space than the 4 to 6 prcs people are actualy asking for) of ultimate magic...but would still ignore that and recommend it to people because overall the book is of gerat value imo.
So how do you reconcile your statement...'I don't hate PRCs' to 'I 'll quit PF if I start seeing PRcs in the core rule books?'
Sorry the first does seem to indicate you hate them.
You can quit things without hating the reason you're quitting.
Right! Like cowboys that love each other but still wanna quit each other!
|
The reason that Paizo got rid of the Archmage is that the entire concept of the Archmage PrC was that he was really good at being a wizard. In Pathfinder, the class that's really good at being a wizard is the Wizard.Well, then just make the archmage even better at being a wizard...simple.
Making a PrC with the concept of being a better version of the base classes than the base class itself is amazingly stupid and redundant. One of Paizo's goals was to make worthwhile to advance to 20th level in all the base classes. If you have a prestige class that is Wizard++, then that fails.
The reason that Paizo got rid of the Archmage is that the entire concept of the Archmage PrC was that he was really good at being a wizard. In Pathfinder, the class that's really good at being a wizard is the Wizard.Well, then just make the archmage even better at being a wizard...simple.
I always thought that it was a PrC where a caster would bind themselves even more to magic, to a bit of their own detriment even, but gain stranger new abilities because of it.
However, I do believe that this should have been a archetype they released in the UM complete with manditory feats granted by class, instead of a feat of choice.
I said that if the game got to the point where players started carrying mountains of books and such as thing as "expertise" in playing the game developed, I would find another game system to play. One aspect of that is having a ton of PrCs. But I, also, said that I am in support of an occasional PrC being published in an Adventure Path and integrated into the fluff of that path.
Ok what constitutes a ton?
Lets say if UM had 4....and UC has 5. So you have a 4 books a player might need to bring to a game....without Player options books coming out in the near future.
Also what is the difference between having a ton of PrCs to a ton of feat to duplicate those PrCs? How does feats not require system expertise? In my experience feats are where you generaly find what people called 'traps'.
Is that too much for you? Are you at all ever willing to compromise?
Or would not actualy have a big book of PrC actualy be easier for you to just skip on and say this is not allowed in my game?
Making a PrC with the concept of being a better version of the base classes than the base class itself is amazingly stupid and redundant One of Paizo's goals was to make worthwhile to advance to 20th level in all the base classes. If you have a prestige class that is Wizard++, then that fails.The reason that Paizo got rid of the Archmage is that the entire concept of the Archmage PrC was that he was really good at being a wizard. In Pathfinder, the class that's really good at being a wizard is the Wizard.Well, then just make the archmage even better at being a wizard...simple.
This. wanna be Archmage? be an high level mage. No need of PrC for this flavour.
Class has neat abilities? Well those should have been part of the mage from day 1 then.
Fullstop.
Ok what constitutes a ton?
Lets say if UM had 4....and UC has 5. So you have a 4 books a player might need to bring to a game....without Player options books coming out in the near future.
Also what is the difference between having a ton of PrCs to a ton of feat to duplicate those PrCs? How does feats not require system expertise? In my experience feats are where you generaly find what people called 'traps'.
Is that too much for you? Are you at all ever willing to compromise?
Or would not actualy have a big book of PrC actualy be easier for you to just skip on and say this is not allowed in my game?
I can just see it not.. Ultimate Prestige.
If the 'occasional' PrC is published in an AP, then how soon til you need to bring over a dozen APs?
Never
If you're playing that Adventure Path, then you've got access to that PrC.
So...since you are limited to running APs....which hey I understand that time issue thing....the rest of us who actualy like to run games outside the small box of a AP has to suffer....
Or don't even run Golarion.
I run FR, Eberron, Dragonstar, and Golarion D&D(/PF) games. I don't run APs ( though I am starting one soon)...I tend to run my own stuff driven by the players...so are you now saying pretty much "@#$% you I don't care if you want to save some of your time by having Pazio make well balanced PrCs that generic enough that can be used in any game"...
You know I have a social life outside of gaming I rather my time spent as a DM or a player be spent on making the campaign fun...not waded in constant need to make a feats that in the end sucks compared the PrC it is based on. Also since it is feats...you think that will stop the cherry picking? You will just be making 100 times easier.
Thank you. I now know where you stand. I am really glad you have nothing to do with game design of PF.
One advantage of the PrC over the archetype is that it allows for slightly broader application of higher-level class abilities. For example, if Shadow Dancer abilities are available to a given rogue archetype starting at lvl 10, then a rogue 10 is your only way to get the abilities, whereas a mid-level Fighter or Monk might otherwise have been able to gain the abilities as well.
The best solution is to retool such abilities into feats, but some should really require more dedication of resources than just feats. Hence, PrCs.
|
Making a PrC with the concept of being a better version of the base classes than the base class itself is amazingly stupid and redundant. One of Paizo's goals was to make worthwhile to advance to 20th level in all the base classes. If you have a prestige class that is Wizard++, then that fails.The reason that Paizo got rid of the Archmage is that the entire concept of the Archmage PrC was that he was really good at being a wizard. In Pathfinder, the class that's really good at being a wizard is the Wizard.Well, then just make the archmage even better at being a wizard...simple.
+1. Why bother even having Base Classes? Just remove the perquisites and let everyone play a PrC immediately. Oh hang on, that would make PrC's Base Classes and no body would want to play them... :p
+1. Why bother even having Base Classes? Just remove the perquisites and let everyone play a PrC immediately. Oh hang on, that would make PrC's Base Classes and no body would want to play them... :pMaking a PrC with the concept of being a better version of the base classes than the base class itself is amazingly stupid and redundant. One of Paizo's goals was to make worthwhile to advance to 20th level in all the base classes. If you have a prestige class that is Wizard++, then that fails.The reason that Paizo got rid of the Archmage is that the entire concept of the Archmage PrC was that he was really good at being a wizard. In Pathfinder, the class that's really good at being a wizard is the Wizard.Well, then just make the archmage even better at being a wizard...simple.
Personally I am a fan of Palladium, and there was no such thing as PrCs only classes of various types, and you got to play what you want from the start! Wow what a concept; then we would have things like shadow dancers as starting classes, and DnD/Pathfinder cannon rules laws would not allow such a thing due to lack of iconic nature.
I love PrC's! I miss the days of the Hellfire Warlock and the Drow Judicator (of Selvetarm) not to mention there where a lot of really cool ones that sure you lost out of the RAW mega powers of a class but I don't pick a class for it's mega power. I picked it because it seemed fun to play or for "flavor"
I wish they were in the rulebooks, there are neutral campaign PrC's that would be nice to have (heck, change the write up a little and many campaign based PrC can be neutral).Challenge: Produce a presiege class that does not work as well (or better) as an archtype.
My thoughts are that the only ones that you'll be able to come up with are the ones that require and enable multiclassing such as the Arcane Tricker / Archer or the Mystic Theurge.
Also, your off-topic rant on the price of books only gets a C- due to excessive use of the dollar sign ($).
The ones that have many points of entry would require multiple mostly identical archetype writeups. I'll keep the prestige classes.
I think prestige classes have a place. An archetype is good for Character concept that starts from the ground up. Prestige classes are good for builds that you want to start and grow towards instead starting out as that concept and growing with it. Having archetypes and new classes removed my pet peeve about prestige classes in that sometimes the prestige class is what you wanted to play yet you had to got till level 7 before starting to play the concept you wanted.
So campaign specific prestige classes are great. They may come off as weak in general but usually have campaign role that gives them more power in that setting. This is great and what I look for in Prestige class.
I've toyed with the idea of playing a all Hell Knight Campaign where the players are all of one order.
I'm inclined to agree; prestige classes should encourage character growth and reinforce setting tropes. Pathfinder's approach discourages the random cherry-picking of levels from this and that PrC just to power up a character, and I approve.
But I just can't quite take anyone who uses the term "forced down my unwilling throat" seriously. Sorry, OP. I think it's safe to say you are in no danger whatsoever of needing a stomach pump from reading a book.
On Know Direction last night while talking about Inner Sea Gods, Wesley Schneider made an interesting point about prestige classes vs. archetypes.
Prestige classes are good for world-building where a character actually needs to build prestige before qualifying for it. Like joining an organization. So, Paizo makes Paths of Prestige and Inner Sea Gods prestige classes because they are flavorful.
But they don't work when you're working toward some amorphous concept, like horizon walking. Because why would you need to build prestige before learning how to pick a direction and travel the globe? Maybe you won't be very good at it at first, but a 1st-level anything isn't good compared to its 5th, 10th, 15-level counterpart.
It made a lot of sense and I think Paizo's take is great. So, yeah, it's not really about which is better, but just about which better serves the story you want to tell.
|
Dustin: that sounds like a good summary to me.
I rather like the Hellknight PrC for that reason. Likewise with some of the specialized wizard colleges - Magaambyan and Cypher Lodge for example.
Another usage for PrCs could be to enable a bag of specialized training that isn't intended just for one class. If it's meant for just one class it's good for an archetype (Master Chymist?). But the Dragon Disciple works well with barbarians, rangers, sorcers, bards and paladins. Making it an archetype for each of those classes would've been really awkward.
I'm inclined to agree; prestige classes should encourage character growth and reinforce setting tropes. Pathfinder's approach discourages the random cherry-picking of levels from this and that PrC just to power up a character, and I approve.
But I just can't quite take anyone who uses the term "forced down my unwilling throat" seriously. Sorry, OP. I think it's safe to say you are in no danger whatsoever of needing a stomach pump from reading a book.
Yeah, the OP went with the old "Stop liking what I don't like" shtick with the first post. While I do not really like archetypes myself, I don't accuse people who do of ruining my experience. I do blame them for contributing to it by accepting the direction that Paizo had chosen to take. If more people demanded PrC's with a good balance of crunch and flavor, Pathfinder would be much better off IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the OP went with the old "Stop liking what I don't like" shtick with the first post. While I do not really like archetypes myself, I don't accuse people who do of ruining my experience. I do blame them for contributing to it by accepting the direction that Paizo had chosen to take. If more people demanded PrC's with a good balance of crunch and flavor, Pathfinder would be much better off IMO.I'm inclined to agree; prestige classes should encourage character growth and reinforce setting tropes. Pathfinder's approach discourages the random cherry-picking of levels from this and that PrC just to power up a character, and I approve.
But I just can't quite take anyone who uses the term "forced down my unwilling throat" seriously. Sorry, OP. I think it's safe to say you are in no danger whatsoever of needing a stomach pump from reading a book.
I was never a fan of PRcs (not even in 3.0).
But then I despise multi-classing in general...So the archetypes and full classes (Magus makes a better Eldritch Knight IMO) are a welcome change IMO.
But to each his own.